2 resultados para Primate Hand
em Bucknell University Digital Commons - Pensilvania - USA
Resumo:
Multiple recent studies provide evidence that both human and nonhuman primates possess motor planning abilities. I tested for the demonstration of motor planning in two previously untested primate species through two experiments. In the first experiment, I compared the extent to which squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) and brown capuchins (Cebus apella) plan their movements in a grasping task. Individuals were presented with an inverted cup that required being turned and held upright in order to extract a food reward from the inside of the cup. This task was most efficiently solved by using an initially awkward inverted grasp that affords a comfortable hand and arm orientation at the end of the movement (known as end-state comfort). While certain individuals from both species exhibited end-state comfort, many of the capuchins never demonstrated this type of motor planning. Furthermore, the squirrel monkeys used the efficient grasp significantly more than the capuchins. In the second experiment, I presented the capuchins with another grasping task to test if they would express motor planning abilities in a different context. Here, the capuchins were offered a dowel that was baited on either the left or right end. A radial grasp with the thumb pointing towards the baited end was considered to be the most efficient grasp because it afforded a comfortable final position. The capuchins switched hands and used an overhand radial grasp on the dowel significantly more often than not, thus demonstrating motor planning in this task. The grasps typically utilized by these two closely related species differ considerably in that capuchins are capable of exercising precision grips, whereas squirrel monkeys are limited to whole-handed power grips. Moreover, unlike capuchins, squirrel monkeys are not particularly dexterous nor are they capable of precise manipulative actions. It is therefore more beneficial for squirrel monkeys to plan their movements efficiently because they are less capable of compensating for inappropriate initial grasps. Due to the appreciable variability in the expression of motor planning skills across species, I proposed that morphological constraints might explain the observed discrepancies in movement planning among different primate species.
Resumo:
For as far back as human history can be traced, mankind has questioned what it means to be human. One of the most common approaches throughout Western culture's intellectual tradition in attempts to answering this question has been to compare humans with or against other animals. I argue that it was not until Charles Darwin's publication of The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871) that Western culture was forced to seriously consider human identity in relation to the human/ nonhuman primate line. Since no thinker prior to Charles Darwin had caused such an identity crisis in Western thought, this interdisciplinary analysis of the history of how the human/ nonhuman primate line has been understood focuses on the reciprocal relationship of popular culture and scientific representations from 1871 to the Human Genome Consortium in 2000. Focusing on the concept coined as the "Darwin-Müller debate," representations of the human/ nonhuman primate line are traced through themes of language, intelligence, and claims of variation throughout the popular texts: Descent of Man, The Jungle Books (1894), Tarzan of the Apes (1914), and Planet of the Apes (1963). Additional themes such as the nature versus nurture debate and other comparative phenotypic attributes commonly used for comparison between man and apes are also analyzed. Such popular culture representations are compared with related or influential scientific research during the respective time period of each text to shed light on the reciprocal nature of Western intellectual tradition, popular notions of the human/ nonhuman primate line, and the development of the field of primatology. Ultimately this thesis shows that the Darwin-Müller debate is indeterminable, and such a lack of resolution makes man uncomfortable. Man's unsettled response and desire for self-knowledge further facilitates a continued search for answers to human identity. As the Human Genome Project has led to the rise of new debates, and primate research has become less anthropocentric over time, the mysteries of man's future have become more concerning than the questions of our past. The human/ nonhuman primate line is reduced to a 1% difference, and new debates have begun to overshadow the Darwin-Müller debate. In conclusion, I argue that human identity is best represented through the metaphor of evolution: both have an unknown beginning, both have an indeterminable future with no definite end, and like a species under the influence of evolution, what it means to be human is a constant, indeterminable process of change.